Re: Sender header?

[Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Großjohann)]

On 24 May 2001, Stainless Steel Rat wrote:

> * Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Großjohann) on Thu, 24 May
>   2001
>| Really?  Why should a login have anything to do with a mail
>| address?
> 
> Because a mailbox is defined as type "addr-spec", which is"
> 
> 3.4.1. Addr-spec specification
> 
>    An addr-spec is a specific Internet identifier that contains a
>    locally interpreted string followed by the at-sign character
>    ("@", ASCII value 64) followed by an Internet domain.  The
>    locally interpreted string is either a quoted-string or a
>    dot-atom.  If the string can be represented as a dot-atom (that
>    is, it contains no characters other than atext characters or "."
>    surrounded by atext
> 
> The defacto standard for the locally interpreted string is one's
> login name, has been that way for more than 30 years.

The defacto standard for the locally interpreted string has changed.
These days, people want to hide the login names for security purposes.

>| Why should a FQDN be (the after-@ part of) a mail address?
> 
> Because a domain-literal is exactly that.

A domain-literal need not be a FQDN, it can also be a domain name.
For example, uni-dortmund.de is a possible domain-literal, even though
there is no such host.

> Together, "login @ fqdn" absolutely identifies the sender given a
> reasonably configured system.

The way I see it, your requirements for `reasonably configured' are
pretty steep, and what you want makes life really hard for people
working on systems which don't match your idea of `reasonably
configured'.  This is pointless.

kai
-- 
~/.signature: No such file or directory